John Boehner said that the White House view on Libya doesn’t meet the 'straight-face test.' | AP Photo
Close

A bipartisan group of 10 lawmakers filed suit in federal court last week to seek an end to the American mission, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who joined the suit, plans to offer an amendment to the Pentagon spending bill that would prohibit the use of government funds to maintain the engagement beyond Oct. 1.

Even if the House acted to stop him, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid supports the view of a president of his own party. He is unlikely to take up a concurrent resolution binding Obama’s hands, and several senators are currently working on an authorization measure that would affirm the U.S. role in fighting Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi.

Text Size

-

+

reset

The New York Times reported over the weekend that the president discarded the advice of top Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers in choosing not to seek authorization for U.S. action under the War Powers Act. Instead, Obama went with the counsel of State Department attorney Harold Koh, a War Powers expert.

In a book, Koh wrote that the law was poorly drafted and “too easily evaded.”

The interpretation sidesteps the question of the constitutionality of the War Powers Act. White House lawyers, in both Democratic and Republican presidencies, have long held that the law is unconstitutional because a provision allowing for Congress to disapprove of the action within the 90-day window would not require the president’s signature and could thus be interpreted as an unconstitutional legislative veto.

The House is expected to debate the annual Pentagon spending bill under an “open” rule that would allow for a vote on Kucinich’s amendment, but Boehner recently told colleagues that he doesn’t want his fellow Ohioan to hijack the war debate.

Regardless of how they go about it, a House vote against American involvement in Libya would be a powerful symbol in the debate, forcing the president to choose between his current policy and the expressed will of the chamber of Congress closest to public opinion.

One House GOP aide said a “variety of options are on the table” for a stand-alone bill, including language mandating withdrawal - whether immediate or a longe, “phased” withdrawal of American support - or barring “escalation” of the U.S. effort in the Libyan campaign. Or it could include cutting off funds in the current year Defense budget.

Alternately, Boehner and other top Republicans could “get behind Kucinich,” who would require an end to U.S participation in the NATO-led effort within 15 days. That last option is considered unlikely, though, given Boehner’s distaste for joining forces with Kucinich.

Republicans also dismiss arguments that Reid will ignore any stand-alone bill in Libya coming from the House, no matter how much bipartisan support there is for the measure.

“We can only control what we can control,” said the Republican aide. “If Harry Reid ran the House legislative calendar, we would do nothing.”

Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.) will offer a bill on Tuesday that would require an end to U.S. participation in the Libyan campaign 30 days after enactment on the legislation.

“Congress finds that the President failed to articulate a clear national security imperative for United States military actions in support of operations in Libya,” states a copy of the Heck bill provided to POLITICO. No Pentagon funds could be used in support of the Libya campaign except to facilitate withdrawal of American forces.

Obama violates the war powers act and where is the outrage by the Democrats? Oh I forgot, that is saved only for conservatives. Obama violates the law and the "Rangels" and "Weiners" don't seem to have a problem with it.

This is, unfortunately, nothing but political game-playing by Republicans. Can anyone imagine Boehner at al. trying to control the immoral Bush/Cheney Iraqi war? Of course not. As Republican McCain, in effect, says: "Would these critical Republicans have had us do nothing as Qadhafi wiped out 700,000 people in Benghazi?" This is another new battle within the Republican civil war I had not anticipated; it could be the biggest battle of them all.

It doesn't matter what the Senate thinks, because another option is to defund it, and that power belongs to the House. One thing Obama understands is hardball, because he has played it all his life. Would Obama prefer the humilitiation of knowing the world is laughing at him, when he is forced to face the fact that it can't always be his way. Leaders all over the world have learning that lesson, from the ancient Romans and Egyptians till today, and it's usually taught to them by the military or by the people themselves.

President Obama missed a perfect opportunity to display and model co-operation and compromise. Regardless of his personal views, he could have gone to Congress and complied with the WPA. Little harm is done - except to his ego - and all this distraction could have been avoided.

I used to think his behavior, called "Let's Watch You and Him Fight" (Games People Play), was due to inexperience. However, based on the frequency with which this technique has been used and the bullying used to bring it off, and considering whose opinions the President chooses to rely on and whose he rejects, I have come to the conclusion the behavior is no accident, but a deliberately employed method to keep this country in an uproar and to weaken the pillars of civil society in order to reshape it to his own world view.

I would like to be wrong, but I don't think so, and I will do every thing I can to counteract these influences in my personal life. I don't know what "shared common values" the President is talking about, but I don't think they're mine.

I used to think his behavior, called "Let's Watch You and Him Fight" (Games People Play), was due to inexperience. However, based on the frequency with which this technique has been used and the bullying used to bring it off, and considering whose opinions the President chooses to rely on and whose he rejects, I have come to the conclusion the behavior is no accident, but a deliberately employed method to keep this country in an uproar and to weaken the pillars of civil society in order to reshape it to his own world view.

I would like to be wrong, but I don't think so, and I will do every thing I can to counteract these influences in my personal life. I don't know what "shared common values" the President is talking about, but I don't think they're mine.

Agreed! Very well thought out and articulated post! Obama tends to forget that he is POTUS of all the people, not just a chosen few. To refer to Republicans as "the enemy" was not the brightest comment to make. A lot of Repubs voted for him. Maybe we would change our perception of him, if he changed his perception of us all being so stupid that we need to be micromanaged and told how to live our lives? Unfortunately he needs to change first, and that's just not going to happen, so we all just go on with our lives, occasionally wondering what's he's going to try to do next. Judging from the vast number of posts available to respond to, one gets the impression that people feel somehow cheated by this man, and they're disappointed in themselves for being duped. I don't think that damage can be undone, because they no longer trust him.